janny wrote:
> Ezzel a dátummal: Sunday 16 March 2008 22.20.27 Miklos Vajna ezt írta:
>>> IIRC I had a repo somewhere of a graphical live installer I started
>>> writing, but I don't think it actually did anything. Anyway, *IMHO* a
>>> live installer is better because then you can try it and install it if
>>> you like it without needing to download 2 ISOs (Live and Install)
>> yes, both has advantages. the advantage of a non-live gui install is
>> that you don't have to wait a lot till the installer starts. i haven't
>> benchmarked it but the normal setup is below 30 secs i think while
>> fwlive is probably a few _minutes_. (ie if you are _forced_ to load a
>> full kde just because of an install can be annoying.)
>> it is necessary to keep the original install of this
> new fwlive graphical install only one options
> your this selection
>
I'm not sure what do you mean janny =) but in general you don't
need to load KDE nor are you forced to install the live image :)
All we are forced to do is to have an *default* install.
Example :
Do a live CD with say ede ( or some such foo mini DE ) stripped , with only
what one would need to start it ( eg: minimal X , network things , minimal libs to run that etc )
Your LiveCD is <200MB in this case. For the rest ( 500MB++ ) you could have in theory the FPM's
for the default install.
Anyway I'm not sure I'm really an fan of this but is possible :)
crazy